Talk:Interstate 80 in New Jersey/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 23:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picking this up, but I see that the nominator has not made significant changes to the article and has not consulted with significant contributors. I would suggest doing the latter. Sounder Bruce 23:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 8, 2022, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: See below.

2. Verifiable?: Several newspaper citations are missing page numbers, several map citations are missing most of their information, and there's a clear overreliance on DOT materials in the Route description section.

3. Broad in coverage?: The History section is far too short for a cross-state highway, let alone a full fledged Interstate. Opening dates for several sections between 1953 and 1973 are missing, and several decades have minimal coverage.

4. Neutral point of view?: Perhaps a byproduct of the underdeveloped History section, but there is no mention of the environmental and social impact of I-80's construction across New Jersey.

5. Stable?:

Pass

6. Images?: The number of images for a fairly short article is causing sandwiching issues on smaller screens, and are frankly overkill.

This article needs to be rewritten to modern standards before it can be nominated again. It hasn't been significantly refreshed in years and it shows.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Sounder Bruce 03:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments

"Rural areas", "urban areas", "wooded and hilly areas", etc. are all overused
Lane counts and configurations aren't naturally integrated, which makes the reading stilted.
Not much in the way of topographic information, mainly whether the road rises/falls with the terrain.
MOS:DASH issues all over the place, especially in names.
"A short distance later" is used too often.
Missing AADT information for the Route description section.
More information is needed on the predecessors in the same corridor.
Construction details and costs are needed for the segments, along with the aforementioned opening dates.
The rest area paragraph needs to be majorly trimmed, as it is given undue weight.
Minor information like call boxes and fencing should also be trimmed or eliminated outright.